Weight Limitation Leads To Interesting Argument, Part One
by ANN Correspondent Dave Slosson
Established and announced at EAA AirVenture 2004, the Sport
Pilot rules and regulations have continued as written, with few
modifications. For the purpose of this discussion, we will only
concentrate on a few provisions, although many others factor in and
will be brought into the arguments as appropriate. See one previous commentary on
sport pilot here.
The first provision is the definition of a light-sport aircraft,
and quoting from the rule: (bold emphasis mine)
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other
than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more
than--
(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended
for operation on water
in conjunction with the certification provision below:
§21.181 Duration.
(a) * * * (3) A special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category is effective as long as-
(i) The aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport
aircraft;
(ii) The aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except
for those alterations performed in accordance with an applicable
consensus standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or
a person acceptable to the FAA;
(iii) The aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not
likely to develop an unsafe condition; and
(iv) The aircraft is registered in the United
States.
What we will explore in this
article are the rules, the intent of the rules, the unintended
consequences of the sum of the rules, and should they be considered
for changes.
As a bit of necessary background, the light-sport rules were
developed, initially, as a means to address the two-person or "fat
ultralights" that were being used as part of 14 CFR part 103, but
were unregulated.
So, from the Preamble to the Final Rule:
Purpose of this rule:
- Increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by
closing the gaps in existing regulations and by accommodating new
advances in technology.
- Provide for the manufacture of light-sport aircraft that
are safe for their intended operations.
- Allow operation of light-sport aircraft exceeding the
limits of ultralight vehicles operated under 14 CFR part 103, with
a passenger and for flight training, rental, and towing.
Also from the Preamble:
There is room for debate and disagreement, and the FAA is
prepared to make changes when appropriate. But in the FAA's
judgment, these standards strike a balance in favor of safety while
allowing freedom to operate.
In discussion with Michael Gallagher, who was the Director of
the Small Aircraft Directorate (sounds redundant, doesn't it?)
until just before the final rule was issued, he said the intent of
the rule was about recreation and fun, not transportation. Mike was
in a lot of the committee discussions after the NPRM was closed and
the many responses were in hand. The original NPRM suggested 1232
pounds max gross weight, which is an ultralight category in Canada.
The weight was increased to 1320 pounds, or 600 kilos, in the final
rule after suggestions regarding a ballistic parachute system.
Again from the Preamble:
The gross takeoff weight includes the added weight of two
passengers, ten or more gallons of fuel, one or more pieces of
luggage, and a ballistic parachute carried on an aircraft. This
weight allows the aircraft to be constructed with stronger
materials, to use stronger landing gear, and to use a heavier and
more powerful four-stroke engine.
Why a weight restriction anyway? In
talking with Tom Peghiny (right) -- former Chairman of
the airplane subcommittee to develop voluntary standards for
light-sport construction after the rule was finalized, and now the
president of Flight Design USA. In short, Tom says, the rulesmakers
had to start somewhere. He felt that weight was a determining
factor as it is a quantifiable metric to define the category, the
same as stall speed and maximum speed.
The big question, he said, was how do you quantify easy-to-fly
in a regulatory manner?
Again from the Preamble:
Second, there are situations where a line must be drawn. For
example, the case can be made that the maximum weight or speed
could be somewhat higher or lower than what is being adopted. In
these situations, the FAA is not establishing this rule with the
intent of including or excluding specific aircraft. Instead, the
FAA is trying to objectively determine where the line should be
drawn while considering the appropriate level of safety and the
complexity of the operation.
And,
The proposal was based on the three factors--(1) special
light-sport aircraft would be very basic in design and
construction:...
So that's the intent and the opinions of why the gross weight
was set as it stands. There are many currently certified Standard
Category aircraft that fall under the 1320 gross, and many other
simple, noncomplex aircraft that fall over the gross, but not by
much. There are Aeroncas, Luscombes, and Pipers in both the
approved category and the unapproved category.
No Cessnas are in the approved category. (You can view the
Standard Category list
here.)
In tomorrow's second half of this story, we'll consider a very
specific case involving one pilot, who holds multiple STCs...
including one intended to allow a specially-built Cessna 120 to
fully comply with the LSA rule. So, why doesn't it?